5 ms·

- 1.3 million deaths worldwide, annually (94% cause by human error) - existing infrastructure (roads) isn't going anywhere (no need to build anything) - reduc

- 1.3 million deaths worldwide, annually (94% cause by human error) - existing infrastructure (roads) isn't going anywhere (no need to build anything) - reduced traffic congestion (autonomous vehicles can better react/drive) - improved supply chains (autonomous trucks) (can work 0-24) just to name a few off top of my head

zinekeller 4y ago
> existing infrastructure (roads) isn't going anywhere (no need to build anything) I think that this is a sunk-cost fallacy. Sure, you would need to build infrastructure for trains, but after that trains are now reasonably automated, can carry cargo, and do other things with the exception of stopping at the exact destination you wanted to (in other words, it requires predetermined stops which people outside the US shrugs and just walk or bike the last feet). Also, they're proven to work: even China (which previously didn't have trains to its far-flung places) and they've done what you've expect. I think that the sole reason that anyone wants to invest in automated (non-train) driving is because trains are boring while AI is oh-so-shiny.
- yreg 4y ago
  Trains won't do last mile delivery.
  - oblio 4y ago
    Current trains? Not directly. But with the levels of investment in cars and roads, we could have mini trains on reduced tracks (think stuff like mine tracks) going almost anywhere, probably for a fraction of maintaining our road infrastructure and cars.
    - shepherdjerred 4y ago
      We're not going to stop maintaining roads. They exist for military defense as much as they do for road trips and trucks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_System_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_System_(Unite...
      - janef0421 4y ago
        Road maintenance isn't a fixed cost; The level of use, particularly by heavy vehicles like trucks, affects the amount of maintenance required.
        shepherdjerred 4y ago
        You’re right. It’d definitely decrease maintenance. I’m not sure how much maintenance is from usage vs wear from the weather (especially in cold areas)
  - jaxrtech 4y ago
    Or have the train get your delivery drones close enough to the last mile for the battery to last :^)
- cwalv 4y ago
  > with the exception of stopping at the exact destination you wanted to This, and leaving from the exact starting point you want to, at the exact time you want to, without out-of-the-way intermediate stops that you don't want, without switching lines. I can also easily move a table, couch, 2 shopping carts full of groceries, etc. It's not an insignificant difference in convenience
- spikels 4y ago
  Little known fact: In Western Europe when they decided to prioritize the passenger train network it forced 80-90% freight onto trucks on roads.
airza 4y ago
The existing infrastructure is absolutely going somewhere. Maintaining asphalt roads and highways is a constant, expensive, and neverending struggle.
- Keyframe 4y ago
  Yes, and that's not going to go away.
lamontcg 4y ago
- more autonomy for disabled people / elderly (although the risk is clearly that vehicles will transition into subscription services that cost many thousands of dollars a year and price them all out)
dionidium 4y ago
> 1.3 million deaths worldwide, annually (94% cause by human error) You don't need full autonomy to mostly fix this, but the fixes are politically untenable (currently). The cars should be speed-governed, they should be speed-limit aware -- the car should routinely be overriding the desire of the driver. No, you can't go into the bike lane to get around traffic. No, you can't make the split-second decision to swerve around a car braking in front of you. No, you can't operate the vehicle at 100 mph in a residential zone. No, you can't go that fast right now; it's raining way too hard, doofus. No, you can't operate your vehicle onto a scheduled parade route. You don't need full autonomy to create cars that prevent a significant percentage of driver -- to put it charitably -- errors. These are fairly straightforward problems. The opposition is political.
- grandmczeb 4y ago
  In the real world political tenability matters a lot, so I don’t really think ”fixes” that ignore it are very interesting to discuss. But if we’re already assuming politics doesn’t matter there’s a much more effective solution: ban cars entirely.
  - dionidium 4y ago
    I'm not so hopeless as this. Seatbelts, speed limits, and drunk driving laws were similarly unpopular. That opposition was overcome primarily, I think, because it's so stupid, in the end, and the argument for those things is so compelling that it can't be ignored forever. We will find ourselves in the same position with speed regulators, etc. Once some country does it, the reduction in lives lost will be impossible to ignore.
janef0421 4y ago
Those are all problems dependent on the existing auto-mobile centric transport landscape, and would be better solved by moving away from that landscape.

zinekeller 4y ago

> existing infrastructure (roads) isn't going anywhere (no need to build anything) I think that this is a sunk-cost fallacy. Sure, you would need to build infrastructure for trains, but after that trains are now reasonably automated, can carry cargo, and do other things with the exception of stopping at the exact destination you wanted to (in other words, it requires predetermined stops which people outside the US shrugs and just walk or bike the last feet). Also, they're proven to work: even China (which previously didn't have trains to its far-flung places) and they've done what you've expect. I think that the sole reason that anyone wants to invest in automated (non-train) driving is because trains are boring while AI is oh-so-shiny.

yreg 4y ago
Trains won't do last mile delivery.
- oblio 4y ago
  Current trains? Not directly. But with the levels of investment in cars and roads, we could have mini trains on reduced tracks (think stuff like mine tracks) going almost anywhere, probably for a fraction of maintaining our road infrastructure and cars.
  - shepherdjerred 4y ago
    We're not going to stop maintaining roads. They exist for military defense as much as they do for road trips and trucks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_System_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_System_(Unite...
    - janef0421 4y ago
      Road maintenance isn't a fixed cost; The level of use, particularly by heavy vehicles like trucks, affects the amount of maintenance required.
      - shepherdjerred 4y ago
        You’re right. It’d definitely decrease maintenance. I’m not sure how much maintenance is from usage vs wear from the weather (especially in cold areas)
- jaxrtech 4y ago
  Or have the train get your delivery drones close enough to the last mile for the battery to last :^)
cwalv 4y ago
> with the exception of stopping at the exact destination you wanted to This, and leaving from the exact starting point you want to, at the exact time you want to, without out-of-the-way intermediate stops that you don't want, without switching lines. I can also easily move a table, couch, 2 shopping carts full of groceries, etc. It's not an insignificant difference in convenience
spikels 4y ago
Little known fact: In Western Europe when they decided to prioritize the passenger train network it forced 80-90% freight onto trucks on roads.

airza 4y ago

The existing infrastructure is absolutely going somewhere. Maintaining asphalt roads and highways is a constant, expensive, and neverending struggle.

Keyframe 4y ago
Yes, and that's not going to go away.

lamontcg 4y ago

- more autonomy for disabled people / elderly (although the risk is clearly that vehicles will transition into subscription services that cost many thousands of dollars a year and price them all out)

dionidium 4y ago

> 1.3 million deaths worldwide, annually (94% cause by human error) You don't need full autonomy to mostly fix this, but the fixes are politically untenable (currently). The cars should be speed-governed, they should be speed-limit aware -- the car should routinely be overriding the desire of the driver. No, you can't go into the bike lane to get around traffic. No, you can't make the split-second decision to swerve around a car braking in front of you. No, you can't operate the vehicle at 100 mph in a residential zone. No, you can't go that fast right now; it's raining way too hard, doofus. No, you can't operate your vehicle onto a scheduled parade route. You don't need full autonomy to create cars that prevent a significant percentage of driver -- to put it charitably -- errors. These are fairly straightforward problems. The opposition is political.

grandmczeb 4y ago
In the real world political tenability matters a lot, so I don’t really think ”fixes” that ignore it are very interesting to discuss. But if we’re already assuming politics doesn’t matter there’s a much more effective solution: ban cars entirely.
- dionidium 4y ago
  I'm not so hopeless as this. Seatbelts, speed limits, and drunk driving laws were similarly unpopular. That opposition was overcome primarily, I think, because it's so stupid, in the end, and the argument for those things is so compelling that it can't be ignored forever. We will find ourselves in the same position with speed regulators, etc. Once some country does it, the reduction in lives lost will be impossible to ignore.

janef0421 4y ago

Those are all problems dependent on the existing auto-mobile centric transport landscape, and would be better solved by moving away from that landscape.